1998338:We constantly end up with 3 players either before or after gameday at my place and have started playing 3-way multi player games. Basically it's 3 players in a last man standing match. You can attack who-ever you want, defend with protectors against any attack. It's really awesome for deck testing since you now have to deal with two opponents at all times and have to leave room for possible attacks from both.
We have tried this where I play/run and the same results always happen, even though the justification is sound and logical, the outcome is always the same. In war, and in strategy games, there is no reason to shift your offensive front into to places (unless you significantly outnumber the opposition), with a 3-way someone with 'always' get double teamed, if they do not, the players are not tactically savy or they are playing 'nice.' Basic logic tells us 2v1 eliminates one person faster, the tactics there after are 'how do I cripple my enemy-partner so I can also take him out once our mutual enemy is taken care of.' People may argue that I am wrong, but how would it be logical to hit player A) with a single ability, then player B) with an ability, and I am player C. I would simply be dividing my damage which would not help me in the end. Even if you are the one getting double teamed the same tactics apply, your survival depends on taking someone else out, if you show your offensiveness early one and weaken someone chances are you wont be the one double teamed. Its simply not logical at all for everyone in the 3-for-all to split their damage amongst everyone, that wouldnt make sense.
Moral of the story, 3-for-alls (at least where I play) never end well and end up making people angry, we usually shift towards 2v2s if we want larger games.